You're viewing a single thread.
Permanently Deleted
some sort of business such as being a landowner
It is wild seeing "owning land" being described as being a "business"
That isn't what a landlord does. They're supposed to keep the property maintained, help tenants with things that break, provide and maintain amenities, and handle macro issues like pest control and spraying.
There are absolutely shitty landlords out there who do nothing to earn their money, but there are also landlords who take their job seriously and maintain the property, and are genuinely helpful.
There are absolutely shitty landlords out there who do nothing to earn their money
That is because landlords don't extract rent for services, they extract rent simply from owning the property and charging rent to use it. That there are some landlords that maintain the value of their property better than others is irrelevant.
It's like saying "there were good slave owners, too!". It's not the treatment of the slaves that was the problem with slavery, it was the ownership and control of human beings. The problem isn't the poor service of landlords, it's the ownership and control over housing that someone else needs to exist. That landlords can still extract rent while doing nothing to maintain the property only serves as evidence that they aren't being paid for any kind of service or added value. They get paid simply because they own something someone else needs.
What do you propose? No one owns land? Or everyone should be able to purchase a home?
Making it illegal to rent property you don't personally live on.
If someone wants to rent out their basement, or split their home into a duplex then they are creating housing and I have no problem with that. Someone purchasing a home they have no intention living in so they can profit off someone else requiring shelter to live is a parasite.
I can't quite imagine how hotels would work then. Generally, you'd say "Oh, we'll make an exception for them" but then many people would try to skirt themselves into the exception.
Why are we pretending different dwelling classifications don't already exist? Hotels are an entire classification unto itself, same with homesteads, which is what op is referring to
Do you think people who stay at a hotel have the same rights under the law as renters?
Last I heard, many urban landlords are getting out of that business and becoming hotel owners via Airbnb. It helps to make sure that those that do stay in the business have a healthy supply of tenants.
Is this supposed to be some kinda gotcha? You think everyone being able to purchase a home is some kinda outlandish impossible feat?No, serious question. Just wondering what world was being envisioned.
Not everyone wants to buy a house - if I know I'm only staying in an area for a year or two, I wouldn't want to go to the hassle of buying and selling a place. Or if I move to a new area, renting for a while until I decide where I want to live longer term is a useful tool.
Ahh, I see! Personally, I think if everyone was able to afford a home, then buying and selling one wouldn't really be a hassle.
Makes sense. If it were more like buying a car, say.
How would a society without rentals work?
Lol i like how both of these replies seem to concede landlords are like slave owners.
Do you consider mortgages to be the same as renting? They charge you interest in exchange for letting you borrow money to own your home, is that rent? I'm trying to figure out what's tripping you up. If landlords "provide housing" to those who can't afford to buy, banks do the same thing. If landlords provide maintenance to a property, maintenance workers and contractors do the same thing. If landlords manage a collection of related properties as in an apartment building, then a housing co-op does the same thing.
In all honesty, I have a really hard time understanding why you think landlords are somehow essential.
I wasn't saying anything about mortgages equivalency to rent, or that landlords are essential. I'm just curious as to how a society without landlords would work, in your view.
Housing Co-ops, public housing, personal ownership.
They get paid simply because they own something someone else needs.
Does that mean rental car companies are evil entities as well?
Ignoring the hyperbole (I never suggested landlords were evil), are car rentals engaging in economic rent extraction? Are cars a scarce resource? If not, then it is not the same.
Ignoring the hyperbole (I never suggested landlords were evil)
My apologies. I was confusing you with assassin_aragorn (who you quoted), who made this comment...
absolutely shitty landlords
I was paraphrasing by using the word evil as a catch-all, from that comment.
are car rentals engaging in economic rent extraction?
AKA being available for rental? Yes, they are. They're a business, they charge as much as they can get away with.
Are cars a scarce resource? If not, then it is not the same.
Housing is not scarce, just too expensive for some/many to afford, in the areas they want to live in.
I literally drove by a new housing development today, they do exist. But it was far away from a central urban area that has lots of activity.
That's capitalism, and that sucks, but it's where we are right now.
Jesus. The "absolutely shitty landlords" was in a quote block because it came from the comment I was responding to. That was their tone, not mine. In case you want it spelled out, landlords aren't evil.
Did you look up what rent extraction was? I'll let you look into it, I'm not a dictionary. Car rentals aren't considered rent extraction because they aren't a scarce resource. By definition they are mobile: someone can't own ALL the cars in an area, because someone could buy one and bring it into town.
Land (and by extension HOMES) are scarce, especially by location. If someone owns all the land in an area, someone can't just... Drive more into the area? A landowner could build more homes on their land (development), but the rent being EXTRACTED is by definition that component of its price beyond it's costs of construction and maintenance.
Adam Smith took issue with rent [his term is rent, but it's more specifically rent EXTRACTION] because rent is unproductive: it is defined and quantified by HOW MUCH MORE it is than what it costs to produce and maintain the things being rented. Whereas other commodity prices are determined by what it costs to bring it to market (wages+profit), rent is determined by HOW MUCH MORE. They extract their price simply by wielding their ownership over it, and the profit they derive from it is defined by that unproductive component of its price.
That's capitalism, and that sucks, but it's where we are right now.
Well fuck me, I guess, right? Guess we're stuck with it?
Fuck off with your demeaning tone. If landlords disappeared tonight the world would be quantifiably better (those were my words that time, have fun)
The “absolutely shitty landlords” was in a quote block because it came from the comment I was responding to. That was their tone, not mine. In case you want it spelled out, landlords aren’t evil.
I noticed that after my initial post and went back and changed it, but I guess you were already replying to my original text in the comment.
I appreciate the clarification
Sure thing. I strive for the truth, always.
Apparently I pissed off ChatGTP.
Sorry, a rental is a rental is a rental.
You're letting somebody else use your thing for a while and in return they pay you some money for the usage.
Doesn't matter how scarce or not the thing is, the fact that it's being borrowed for money makes it a rental.
Doesn't matter how much you try to obfuscate that fact with the extra verbiage you are spouting.
Lol, it probably sounds like chatgpt to you because it is textbook economic theory.
It doesn't matter how deep you stick your fingers in your ears and try not to hear it, rent and economic rent are very different for very good reasons. That you're limited to just the one word "rent" isn't really my problem. Economic rent is (justifiably) considered the most pernicious form of profit by economists of all types.
You can gracefully exit this argument by admitting you don't know what you're talking about, I don't shame you for it.